Why is it fashionable to deride historians? The answer lies outside academia
I view myself as standing in the middle of a maelstrom that has recently arisen, triggered by some remarks by a friend, the immensely popular William Dalrymple, on the subject of history writing; more precisely on the conflict between academic writing and popular writing. I have some experience in academia, having spent some years doing research in university departments, but I have written for a non-specialist readership, and so have some insight into the popular side of things. I can see that in this conflict it is history that loses.
This is not the place to go into the larger question of what the role of the academic historian is, but it might be useful to put down a few things that historians do or do not do, contrary to popular impressions. For one, the aim of the historian (or even of the collective body of historians) is not to collect every possible piece of information about the past. While focussing their individual research on particular places, times and events, historians seek to understand the processes through which change has taken place in human societies. Which periods or places they choose to focus on, and which questions they seek to answer, are matters that are influenced by each historian’s own time and place, personal inclinations, and particularly current trends and movements in history writing.
It is through such research—in which conversations between historians also play an important part—that our general understanding of the past advances. Historians understand that they cannot provide every answer, they can only hope to keep asking newer questions. Among the general public, however, there is a tendency to project every apparent gap in information as either a sign of incompetence, or worse, a conspiracy of silence. And when historians have very natural differences of opinion, this is seen as evidence of a deplorable and rampant subjectivity.
Also read: Romila Thapar takes on camps of history, heroin addicts and storytellers
Rise of WhatsApp historians
The other common point on which academic historians are attacked is that they write in an inaccessible style. Sometimes this is seen as an extension of the previous argument, i.e. a desire to deliberately obscure the truth. This complaint is not entirely fair, for a few reasons. For one, academic writing, such as in peer-reviewed journals, is meant primarily for an academic audience. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to historians. Academics in other disciplines too have conversations with each other in this way, where their main aim is to make themselves understood to their peers. Their primary goal is not to address the general public. Having said that, there are several historians who do undertake the task of addressing a general audience. In particular, we have historians who write popular textbooks and other books for a non-academic readership; then they usually write in a style that may educate and also entertain.
Why then has it become fashionable to generally deride and malign the historian? The answer according to me lies largely outside academia. It lies in the increasing use of history to serve ends other than a general advancement of our knowledge about the past. History is now supposed to make us feel good about our sectarian/regional/linguistic and other identities, and invariably that also comes with putting down others. These are aims that are often in conflict with actual history writing, since a dispassionate examination of the past usually presents a much more complex picture. And this explains the rise of pseudo-history, of which the WhatsApp brand is the most visible.
This form of history, written to serve very particular ends that may not be justified by actual historical research, then has to project itself as a truth which has been deliberately hidden by historians. It is no coincidence that many such social media posts are prefaced with—“historians will never tell you this”. I argue that the inaccessible, ideologically motivated historian is a straw man, a largely artificial construct used to discredit history writing itself.
Also read: Was there a Mughal bias in Indian history textbooks? Yes, but not a Muslim one
Need for mutual respect
This brings me to the very important question of popular history writing. The best form this writing takes is the book on a historical subject, based on academic historical research, but written for a non-specialist readership. This does not always have to be written by a historian. A non-specialist writer may access the subject by reading the research of historians, and occasionally consulting primary sources. What such an author primarily brings to the table is the ability to tell an engaging story that is at the same time based on solid research.
What we today need is greater mutual respect. The academic historian needs to engage more with the writer of popular history. One can begin by acknowledging that newer explorations can come from any quarter. At any rate, a critical evaluation of arguments and narratives, which often enjoy considerable popular currency through such writings, is definitely called for. Academic historians reviewing popular history writing is a good way towards such a dialogue.
Conversely, writers of popular histories need to acknowledge the value of historical research within academia, even if not always written in an engaging style. The desire to present one’s own work as a corrective to ‘boring academic writing’ or as a field ignored by academic historians is understandable. At the same time, one should resist the temptation to play the blame game and resort to bad-faith arguments, which undermine rigorous history writing by endorsing the popular WhatsApp trope—“historians will never tell you this”.
Swapna Liddle is a historian and author based out of New Delhi. Views are personal.
This article is part of ThePrint opinion series on Indian history in the Whatsapp age. Read all articles here.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)